Speed of play in the mind of some has become antithetical to individual technical proficiency. There is no mutual exclusivity! First, speed of play is not playing the game frantically at all times. It involves being capable of playing the game properly even when speed increases. Dictating tempo is possible only when one can play at any speed. Teaching players how to play with fewer touches when appropriate is helpful to the player and frankly is extremely challenging to the player because it requires technical proficiency (yes, passing requires technical proficiency just like dribbling, shooting, defending, etc.) as well as the ability to work collaboratively with teammates, and that last point is something that I think is totally ignored in the article.

As in the rest of life, you pick your battles. As in the rest of life, there is a time and place for everything. Teaching quick, artful, imaginative, and creative combinations with limited touches is a wonderful challenge to help unlock opportunities for quick, artful, imaginative, and creative individual attacks, and vice versa. The issue I have with this article is that, for the sake of unleashing players capable of individual technical excellence, it is deemed necessary to criticize the coaching aspiration to empower players to be capable of coping with the speed of increasingly challenging levels of play by being mindful of the touches they take. Yet even the most technically proficient players on the teams referenced by all fans, including myself, of the game (almost in the mode of a cliche) nowadays think first how to combine with their teammates quickly and effectively so that they can then have the chance, if helpful for the team, to do what they can do individually. The greatest players across the globe repeatedly exhibit this ethic. And the ethic is what makes this game so beautiful to watch and so inspiring in other contexts — the combination of unselfishness and individual brilliance.

The opposite ethic — selfishness for the sake of self-promotion — is toxic and inhibits effective team performance. Klinsmann, by the way, has emphatically addressed the need to improve the technical proficiency of American players, and this is being taught more and more by many clubs, and hopefully it will improve even more over time. The true test of our development will come when the mass of young players now receiving technical instruction begin teaching it themselves naturally (right now we have only a small number of truly gifted technical coaches).

Michael Bradley is one example of what I personally think has been the problem of U.S. soccer development, and that is valuing athleticism and hard work (and, my word, he does battle admirably, which has won him favor in the eyes of some strong clubs in some strong leagues internationally) to the exclusion of imagination and technical excellence. I personally hope the USSF will demand development of technical excellence both in terms of “dribbling” AND “passing” (i.e., combining quickly and without the need to take an unnecessary amount of touches to accomplish what could be accomplished more efficiently with fewer touches, as well as moving off the ball intelligently to help teammates make better decisions) such that all players — those with professional-caliber athleticism and those without such gifts — have the fundamental skills that players need to possess to play the game well. There are coaches out there who live and breathe these concepts. These coaches unsurprisingly work humbly and modestly and aren’t sufficiently recognized for the importance of what they are trying to help their players accomplish, but they (and I would never pretend to be one of them) are the ones who deserve the most respect, not the egoists.

Brian, thanks for promoting this exchange of ideas. Your website is a great development for MN soccer.

I agree with you that we need to encourage a player’s ability to possess, dribble, and protect the ball as well. Klinsi also pointed out that a player grows from maximum experience with the ball. He even mentioned kicking the ball against the garage door. My kids better not kick against the garage door…LOL.

In your article, there seems to be a slight negative feeling toward Jurgen Klinsmann’s comments in the interview (thanks for the link). I just listened to the whole hour and I found him well balanced. I found him moderate and very realistic in his approach. In addition, I think Klinsi is the first US MNT coach who has taken a holistic, comprehensive approach to the National team. Frequently, national team coaches just try to fit in players. He truly wants to grow a team. Every player competes for a spot at all times. Every player is expected to develop to the next step. That’s really a good approach.

Lastly, he speaks about the psychological aspect of coaching. He was a pioneer in that field. Let’s be honest, I don’t think North American society needs any more encouragement toward ‘individualism’ , thus US Soccer pointing out that they prefer ‘less individualism’ on the field might be a good decision. Just some personal thoughts.

In other words, the battle you’re fighting is against a straw man. Neither Klinsmann nor anyone else within US Soccer, to my knowledge, would say (or has said) that we should emphasize one-touch play over skill. The two go hand-in-hand.

But what the US lacks, aside from skill on the ball, is tactical awareness and creativity. Forcing players to pass often means that when they’re on the ball, they have to be aware of where their teammates are and what sorts of runs they’re making; those same players are then required to make more creative cuts and runs when they’re off the ball.

The US has survived but never thrived on the gutsy, direct style we have historically embodied.

As a coach, I have set conditions (I prefer to use the word “conditions” v. “restrictions”) on play with 1, 2 or 3 touches depending on what I want to accomplish in the session. From my perspective there is nothing wrong in doing this, however, it needs to be done in the right session and under the right circumstances. When playing one-touch, players are forced to have correct body shape when receiving the ball and think about their play in advance of the ball coming to them. There also needs to be an emphasis on taking that touch (whether it is 1, 2 or 3+ touches) away from pressure and using the “correct foot” to receive the ball. From my point of view, younger players (and even the older players) forget about this and make it “easy” for the opposing team to win the ball back.

“Let’s develop players who make it an option to use the 1, 2 or 3 touch play and not make it a restriction.

Let’s develop players who know when to speed up the game or slow it down and play with a purpose.

Let’s develop players who can use their exceptional individualism to break the games open.”

I have some disagreements with the first bullet point, but I think the author defends this point well in the article. It very well could be that the concept is not being correctly taught in training? I agree 100% on bullet points two and three! In the US we have players who want to go a million miles a minute all the time. I think the “unlimited sub” rule in youth soccer encourages this style of play. Point 3: Players simple DO NOT think for themselves. We have too many coaches trying to micro-manage the players–shut up and let them play!

Mega kudos Ralph and IMS for bringing the serious (and even casual) soccer reader great commentary in the “off season.” Stuff like this is a must read!!!